Archived Topic

BSA's proposed gay policy change

by ABYUFAN · 2/5/2013

Sponsored Advertisementad content
T
tww
SpiffCoug wrote:
I didn't mean to imply being gay was a chastisement. I meant that maybe preaching all this acceptance is removing chastisement from the equation of being delivered from temptation?


Do you mean something like codependency on a grand scale? Where both parties become negatively effected.



I have a half-sister that I have tried to help out of her problems over the years. No matter how much time or money I invested in her, she has either made no change or gotten worse. I might as well have been trying to change the course of the Mississippi with my arm. The problem is that she has no desire to change. Though my intentions were good, I fear I may have interfered with the process and wonder if she might have been better off if I had not helped her at all.
S
SpiffCoug
Yeah. Kind of like that. But when the chastisement is removed from sin, then from where does the impetus for change come? Why would you need to change when no one is really telling you what you are doing is wrong? When does repentence start when the sin is never recognized as such?
S
Schmoe
SpiffCoug wrote:
Yeah. Kind of like that. But when the chastisement is removed from sin, then from where does the impetus for change come? Why would you need to change when no one is really telling you what you are doing is wrong? When does repentence start when the sin is never recognized as such?


This is a good point. We need to be careful not to let the pendulum swing too far in the other direction. Before, it seemed that too many were hating the sinner as well as the sin, and now it seems that many are loving the sinner and the sin.
N
nuk13
Yes, it seems to me that these people have used politics, through a sympathetic media and politicians scrambling for votes, to take the sin out of the acts they commit, therefor any one calling their acts a sin is now the sinner. Of course that same media and most of those politicians are working hard to remove God from things so the word sin is no longer part of the discussion. While it was never right to condemn or judge them condemned, it is not right for them to condemn either.
D
Ddawg
nuk13 wrote:
Yes, it seems to me that these people have used politics, through a sympathetic media and politicians scrambling for votes, to take the sin out of the acts they commit, therefor any one calling their acts a sin is now the sinner. Of course that same media and most of those politicians are working hard to remove God from things so the word sin is no longer part of the discussion. While it was never right to condemn or judge them condemned, it is not right for them to condemn either.


Here's really the bottom line - the politicians in Washington DC that are re-defining the moral fabric of this Country are the biggest bunch of liars, thieves and immoral collection of folks in the entire USA.



For instance - for the 2nd year in a row - Washington DC has been rated the #1 adulterous cheating capitol, per capita, in the USA.



"No One Does Extramarital Affairs Better Than D.C. No One!"



Pat yourself on the back, D.C.: you're a cheating bastard.



For the second year in a row, extramarital dating site AshleyMadison.com has declared D.C. the "Least Faithful City in America," saying that there are more registered users per capita here than anywhere else in the country. Last year the site said D.C. had registered some 38,000 registered users; over the course of 2012, 34,157 new members were added to the rolls of people looking for discreet extramarital affairs. Austin and Houston ranked second and third, respectively."



http://dcist.com/2013/02/no_one_does_extra-marital_affairs_b.php" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;



And as for theft, dishonesty and stealing from the citizens of the USA? No one does it better than Washington DC politicians:



"Mark Levin was furious tonight over the destruction of this country by Democrats like Obama, Pelosi, and Reid and gutless Republicans who are not only complicit, but even now are still afraid to speak out about it:



You should view these politicians with the deepest contempt you can possibly imagine. What they are doing to this country, what they are doing to our finances – there is not a criminal in any federal prison, state prison, city or county jail, with respect to financial crimes of any sort who collectively could have done the kind of damage that Barack Obama and Harry Reid and Nancy Pelosi and YES, willing, timid, gutless Republicans have done to this country! To your future, to your children and your grandchildren! What they are doing is with malice and with forethought….



What the hell does the Democrat party stand for today? The destruction of America? And what the hell does the Republican party stand for today? To sit there with their thumbs in their mouths while it’s going on?



Any politician with an ounce of common sense should be getting on any soap box imaginable and screaming from the top of their lungs that these policies are destroying America!"



So, these are the folks that are telling us what is moral, right vs. wrong? Not in my book.
Sponsored Advertisementad content
C
cornhole153
I get that it's a sin in our religion, but calling sexual relationships between monogamous hetero partners moral and gay partners immoral doesn't make much sense. Same as drinking--yes it's a sin in our religion but I wouldn't call non member drinkers immoral.



[ Post made via Mobile Device ] http://cougarcorner.com/images/mobile.png" alt="" loading="lazy" style="max-width:100%">
D
Ddawg
cornhole153 wrote:
I get that it's a sin in our religion, but calling sexual relationships between monogamous hetero partners moral and gay partners immoral doesn't make much sense. Same as drinking--yes it's a sin in our religion but I wouldn't call non member drinkers immoral.



[ Post made via Mobile Device ] http://cougarcorner.com/images/mobile.png" alt="" loading="lazy" style="max-width:100%">


Exactly - it's not a sin - unless you read the scriptures and listen to the Prophets down through the ages. Other than that, it's all subjective and a matter of perspective.
S
SpiffCoug
cornhole153 wrote:
I get that it's a sin in our religion, but calling sexual relationships between monogamous hetero partners moral and gay partners immoral doesn't make much sense. Same as drinking--yes it's a sin in our religion but I wouldn't call non member drinkers immoral.



[ Post made via Mobile Device ] http://cougarcorner.com/images/mobile.png" alt="" loading="lazy" style="max-width:100%">

It makes perfect sense. The two are NOT synonymous. If you actually believe in the Church, then things just aren't a sin "in our religion." They're a sin, period. It is wrong. Period. Drinking is immoral. Period. regardless of you religious affiliation. Eternal law doesn't change based on one's religious preferences.
B
BoiseBYU
SpiffCoug wrote:
I didn't mean to imply being gay was a chastisement. I meant that maybe preaching all this acceptance is removing chastisement from the equation of being delivered from temptation?


I agree with this.
B
BoiseBYU
Schmoe wrote:
SpiffCoug wrote:
Schmoe wrote:



I don't think that same sex attraction is a major and defining characteristic of a person unless they choose to act upon it. I, therefore, don't consider someone "gay" unless they are choosing to live the lifestyle,.


What if they just hold hands, or kiss a little?

Sounds like acting upon it to me.


Is it immoral?



[ Post made via Mobile Device ] http://cougarcorner.com/images/mobile.png" alt="" loading="lazy" style="max-width:100%">


Yes, acting on homosexual feelings is immoral.


Is this your view or is this from the handbook or other source? I've looked to see what immoral homosexual action is and cannot find anything more specific than one cannot engage in homosexual conduct. We of course teach heterosexuals that they cannot engage in sexual relations outside marriage but I do not think holding hands qualifies, although that might be viewed as acting on heterosexual feelings. I honestly want to know and am not trying to troll
Sponsored Advertisementad content
C
cornhole153
Ddawg wrote:
I get that it's a sin in our religion, but calling sexual relationships between monogamous hetero partners moral and gay partners immoral doesn't make much sense. Same as drinking--yes it's a sin in our religion but I wouldn't call non member drinkers immoral.



[ Post made via Mobile Device ] http://cougarcorner.com/images/mobile.png" alt="" loading="lazy" style="max-width:100%">


Exactly - it's not a sin - unless you read the scriptures and listen to the Prophets down through the ages. Other than that, it's all subjective and a matter of perspective.


Breaking the sabbath is also a sin, if you read the scriptures and listen to the Prophets, I just wouldn't call Buddhists immoral for going to he mall on Sunday.



Or more fittingly... calling monogamous homosexuals immoral, to me, is like calling 7th Day Adventists immoral for observing the Sabbath on on Saturday instead of Sunday.
D
Ddawg
cornhole153 wrote:
cornhole153 wrote:
I get that it's a sin in our religion, but calling sexual relationships between monogamous hetero partners moral and gay partners immoral doesn't make much sense. Same as drinking--yes it's a sin in our religion but I wouldn't call non member drinkers immoral.



[ Post made via Mobile Device ] http://cougarcorner.com/images/mobile.png" alt="" loading="lazy" style="max-width:100%">


Exactly - it's not a sin - unless you read the scriptures and listen to the Prophets down through the ages. Other than that, it's all subjective and a matter of perspective.


Breaking the sabbath is also a sin, if you read the scriptures and listen to the Prophets, I just wouldn't call Buddhists immoral for going to he mall on Sunday.



Or more fittingly... calling monogamous homosexuals immoral, to me, is like calling 7th Day Adventists immoral for observing the Sabbath on on Saturday instead of Sunday.


What point are you trying to make? That it's "Ok" to lead a homosexual life if you are monogamous with your male gay or female lesbian partner? That lifestyle is not immoral?
S
SpiffCoug
He has no point. He is all about relative moralism. There is no right there is no wrong. Cornhole is one of the enlightened few who know better than the rest of us.



2 Nephi 28:21-22:
21 And others will he pacify, and lull them away into carnal security, that they will say: All is well in Zion; yea, Zion prospereth, all is well—and thus the devil cheateth their souls, and leadeth them away carefully down to hell.



22 And behold, others he flattereth away, and telleth them there is no hell; and he saith unto them: I am no devil, for there is none—and thus he whispereth in their ears, until he grasps them with his awful chains, from whence there is no deliverance.
C
Cougarfan87
BoiseBYU wrote:
cornhole153 wrote:
cornhole153 wrote:



I don't think that same sex attraction is a major and defining characteristic of a person unless they choose to act upon it. I, therefore, don't consider someone "gay" unless they are choosing to live the lifestyle,.


What if they just hold hands, or kiss a little?

Sounds like acting upon it to me.


Is it immoral?



[ Post made via Mobile Device ] http://cougarcorner.com/images/mobile.png" alt="" loading="lazy" style="max-width:100%">


Yes, acting on homosexual feelings is immoral.


Is this your view or is this from the handbook or other source? I've looked to see what immoral homosexual action is and cannot find anything more specific than one cannot engage in homosexual conduct. We of course teach heterosexuals that they cannot engage in sexual relations outside marriage but I do not think holding hands qualifies, although that might be viewed as acting on heterosexual feelings. I honestly want to know and am not trying to troll


Somewhere there is a quote by President Hinkley about two young men dancing with young women. It has something to do with one of the young men dancing and just having a good time, whereas the other one is full of lustful thoughts as he dances with a girl. One is engaged in sin and one is not.



I would not say holding hands qualifies as sexual contact, or even a peck on the lips (not passionate kissing that causes arousal), just like I would not condemn a heterosexual couple for the same conduct. These acts are very common in other cultures, even among heterosexuals. However, for the homosexual couple, I would say they are playing with fire, because unlike the heterosexual couple, there is no future where they can grow together and live in an unsinful sexual relationship with eachother. They are just tempting themselves. Likewise, it would be extremely inappropriate for a male missionary to hold hands with or kiss a female, even though those same actions would be perfectly appropriate in another setting, post mission.



It is important to remember we are ultimately judged not only by our acts, but also our thoughts and words. Lustful thoughts, even in not acted upon, such as in President Hinkley's example of the young man just dancing, are still sinful--whether you are heterosexual or homosexual. It is also important to remember that there is no sin in being tempted (so long as it is kicked out immediately), but there is sin in yeilding to temptation through thought, word, or deed.



There does appear to be a double standard often times in the church. We should shudder at all sexual sin--both unmarried heterosexual and homosexual. Both are very serious in the eyes of God.
C
Cougarfan87
SpiffCoug wrote:
He has no point. He is all about relative moralism. There is no right there is no wrong. Cornhole is one of the enlightened few who know better than the rest of us.



2 Nephi 28:21-22:
21 And others will he pacify, and lull them away into carnal security, that they will say: All is well in Zion; yea, Zion prospereth, all is well—and thus the devil cheateth their souls, and leadeth them away carefully down to hell.



22 And behold, others he flattereth away, and telleth them there is no hell; and he saith unto them: I am no devil, for there is none—and thus he whispereth in their ears, until he grasps them with his awful chains, from whence there is no deliverance.


I don't have time to look it up, but there is an even more relevant scripture about "making laws unto ourselves" or something to that effect. Essentially, the idea is that man has ignored God's laws and come up with some laws for himself. +5,000 to whoever finds it first. I'm thinking it is somewhere in the Nephis, but it is possibly in the D&C.
Sponsored Advertisementad content
S
Schmoe
BoiseBYU wrote:
cornhole153 wrote:
cornhole153 wrote:



I don't think that same sex attraction is a major and defining characteristic of a person unless they choose to act upon it. I, therefore, don't consider someone "gay" unless they are choosing to live the lifestyle,.


What if they just hold hands, or kiss a little?

Sounds like acting upon it to me.


Is it immoral?



[ Post made via Mobile Device ] http://cougarcorner.com/images/mobile.png" alt="" loading="lazy" style="max-width:100%">


Yes, acting on homosexual feelings is immoral.


Is this your view or is this from the handbook or other source? I've looked to see what immoral homosexual action is and cannot find anything more specific than one cannot engage in homosexual conduct. We of course teach heterosexuals that they cannot engage in sexual relations outside marriage but I do not think holding hands qualifies, although that might be viewed as acting on heterosexual feelings. I honestly want to know and am not trying to troll


It is my view based on what I have gathered from the words and teachings of the prophets of the Lord. Just as acting on adulterous feelings is immoral, even holding hands and kissing. We must understand that gender is not some creation of society, but an eternal and important part of our identity. Also, sin is sin, regardless of who does it (yes, even Buddhists).
S
SpiffCoug
D&C 88:35?
35 That which breaketh a law, and abideth not by law, but seeketh to become a law unto itself, and willeth to abide in sin, and altogether abideth in sin, cannot be sanctified by law, neither by mercy, justice, nor judgment. Therefore, they must remain filthy still.
C
Cougarfan87
SpiffCoug wrote:
D&C 88:35?
35 That which breaketh a law, and abideth not by law, but seeketh to become a law unto itself, and willeth to abide in sin, and altogether abideth in sin, cannot be sanctified by law, neither by mercy, justice, nor judgment. Therefore, they must remain filthy still.


+5,000. I knew it was in there somewhere.
B
BroncoBot
this has gotten off track again, thanks to one cornhole. so let me attempt to bring it full circle.



I don't want my young son being taught and influenced by a male leader who is kissing or holding hands with other men. I don't care if he claims to be heterosexual. That's not someone I want my young son with.
S
SpiffCoug
BroncoBot wrote:
this has gotten off track again, thanks to one cornhole. so let me attempt to bring it full circle.



I don't want my young son being taught and influenced by a male leader who is kissing or holding hands with other men. I don't care if he claims to be heterosexual. That's not someone I want my young son with.

And to be honest, putting young males in a position where their leaders could be attracted them isn't fair to the gay leader. We don't put young men with the young women's leaders. In most cases it won't be a problem. But for some it might be, so we just avoid the entire situation and possibility.
Page 3 of 4
This is an archived topic from the original CougarCorner forum. New replies are not accepted.